Its an interesting way of looking at intelligence biut to call it idiosyncratic would be an understatement
-
-
The problem with that way of framing it imo is that it conceives of intelligence as an individual property of clearly distinguishable entities, when I'd prefer to view it as a process that operates via the complex interactions of any such identifiable things, including humans ofc
-
in other words, a process - such as a war or a financial bubble - involving humans can be intelligent (if it exhibits the escalatory, "self-enhancing" principle), but individual humans cannot
-
humans are processes too u know... and no, processes are not so much intelligent, as intelligence is itself a process, actualized through processes
-
so capital (indeed any process) is not, in the final analysis, intelligent?
-
with capital, it gets a bit more complicated I guess (when you try to grasp it as an entity or process, things get *weird*), at the very least it comes pretty close to being identical with intelligence as it happens now -which may ofc change, but that's hard for us to conceive of
-
hmm not sure I follow you. are you saying now that intelligence is not a quality (defined by local intensification) attributable to processes, but rather is itself a social process, like capital (or war, etc), which is in fact identical to capital?
-
I'm not not saying that
'in fact identical', 'social' and 'like capital (or war, etc (!))' are problematic because: factual identity is tricky when it comes to capital, social suggests an unfortunately specific perspective, capital isn't like war such that there can be 'a' war -
capital is a specific social process though, like a war or a housing bubble. I take it you agree with the first bit, "that intelligence is not a quality (defined by local intensification) attributable to processes"?
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.